STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DANAPPA SAIBANNA SHEELAVANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government for a change is before this Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 21.7.1993, Annexure "A" in the case on hand. THE respondent submitted a declaration in Form No.7. Before the Land Tribunal, applications were clubbed. According to the petition averments, respondent No.1 is holding 269 acres 32 guntas of land in total. THEre are 7 members in the family. Five members are entitled to hold 54 acres of land each. Two minor daughters are entitled to hold 4 units each i.e., 21 acres 24 guntas. Totally the petitioners can hold 75 acres 24 guntas of land. THE remaining area is beyond the ceiling, according to the petitioner. THE 2nd respondent has a literate son. He can hold 54 acres of land. If this 54 acres is deducted, then the excess holding of land comes to 140 acres 8 guntas. THE 3rd respondent, widow of late Saibanna is entitled for 54 acres of land. If this 54 acres of land is again given deduction, then the excess land comes to 86 acres 8 guntas. THE excess land to the extent of 47 acres, if excluded to this remaining, them it comes to 39 acres 8 guntas which becomes in excess from the findings of the President. THE other members of the Tribunal ruled that by virtue of M.E.No.1058 certified on 8.5.1972, the remaining extent goes to Smt. Savantrewwa by heir ship. THE land bearing Sy.No.305 measuring 39 acres 18 guntas is held to be not in excess on Form No.11 filed by the husband of Smt. Savantrawwa in terms of an order dated 7.3.1979. THE Tribunal ruled that there is no excess holding. THE order is dated 21.7.1993. This order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) MATTER is listed for admission. It is seen that thee order of 1993 is challenged in the year 2006. 13 long years are over. Delay is explained in para 4 of the petition.

(3.) IN these circumstances I deem it proper to reject the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches particularly in the absence of any acceptable reasons in terms of the averments made in para 4. A mere dismissal would not be sufficient in a matter like this. IN these circumstance, I further deem it proper to direct the Law Secretary and the Revenue Secretary to get hold of the file and find out the reasons for non filing the petition in time, even after preparation of the writ petition in the year 2001 in the larger interest and take such action as deemed fit including disciplinary proceedings for negligence or for any other misconduct against those who are responsible for this embarrassing situation to the Government.